Neutrons and Gravity

[Poemander]

I propose that Rutherfords hypothesis of neutrons in the nucleus is incorrect, and that this hypothesis stands in the way of an understanding of gravity akin to that of magnetism. Magnetism has been shown to be a Special Relativistic effect of opposite charges in different inertial frames. Gravity may be understood as a General Relativistic effect of opposite charges in different non-inertial frames in similar manner. If correct, we have a basis for an expanding universe due to a gravitational dipole resulting from the opposite charges on the antiparticles of the electron and the proton. Fred Hoyle's Steady State Universe would then be possibility.

[Strange]

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations. Please read the special rules for this section of the forum, in particular the need to provide evidence. 

 

[Poemander]

The conjecture is that protons and electrons alone exist in the nucleus. The electrons have relativistic energy and corresponding mass, thereby accounting for the mass of every atom, and also the narrow range of relatively stable isotopes each element may have. The evidence for the conjecture is that the only stable particles that can be ejected from an atomic nucleus are electrons and protons, and their antiparticles which may be materialised from the high energy photons and neutrinos released by corresponding decompositions or collision energies. The neutron has half-life 10.3 minutes. All other ejected or created particles last shorter times, and ultimately disintegrate into the same stable particles already mentioned.

The importance of contesting this conjecture is that General  Relativity deals with the effects of relative acceleration in the production of imbalanced fluxes due to relative space contraction. It is clear that AC current, not DC current, emits EM, and EM is affected by gravity. Circular motion is also acceleration likewise, as with relativistic nuclear electrons, much more so than those of the electron shells. Taking the matter to its conclusion, the gravitational dipole implies white holes (like Centaurus A) and black holes, each absorbing matter and energy and repelling anti-energy, which has nil effect  on the matter which is being converted. It is not preposterous to imaging that photons and neutrinos are antiparticles capable of materialising in intergalactic space to replenish the universe. Of course I must sweep away many less plausible conjectures to propose such a situation, but which conjectures are more plausible, and how else does science stall or advance.

Albert Einstein and Emanuel Lasker spent eight years discussing relativity in Bern, to part with opposite views, to join opposite powers, the USA and the USSR respectively. In the end Trinity validated E=mc^2, etc. Emanuel Lasker denied the existence of a vacuum to dodge the constancy of the speed of light (regardless of the relative velocity of the source as A.E. phrased it.)

[beecee]

1 hour ago, Strange said:

!

Moderator Note

Moved to Speculations. Please read the special rules for this section of the forum, in particular the need to provide evidence. 

 

Why do so many newbies with obvious hypotheticals, as opposed  to tried and tested mainstream models, have so much trouble discerning the difference? 

1 hour ago, Poemander said:

I propose that Rutherfords hypothesis of neutrons in the nucleus is incorrect, and that this hypothesis stands in the way of an understanding of gravity akin to that of magnetism.

Proposals without evidence are a dime a dozen. What evidence, observational or experimental, do you have to support your hypothetical claim against the tried and tested mainstream theory/model?

 

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Poemander said:

I propose that Rutherfords hypothesis of neutrons in the nucleus is incorrect, and that this hypothesis stands in the way of an understanding of gravity akin to that of magnetism.

Then you need an alternative explanation for all the evidence that the nucleus also contains neutrons.

Gravity and electromagnetism have a few things in common but are different in so many ways that it is impossible for them to be the same thing.  For example:

1. Electric charge has positive and negative charges (and equivalently for magnetic fields). Gravity doesn't.
2. Electromagnetic forces both attract and repel. Gravity doesn't.
3. Electromagnetism can be easily screened. Gravity can't.
4. Electromagnetism can be explained by a simple force with an inverse square law. Gravity can't.
5. Etc.

(This idiotic idea comes up with such tedious frequency, that I should really keep a list of these somewhere instead of typing it out every time...)

42 minutes ago, Poemander said:

The importance of contesting this conjecture is that General  Relativity deals with the effects of relative acceleration in the production of imbalanced fluxes due to relative space contraction. I

What!?

48 minutes ago, Poemander said:

Taking the matter to its conclusion, the gravitational dipole implies white holes (like Centaurus A)

Please provide some evidence that Centaurus A is a white hole.

51 minutes ago, Poemander said:

Albert Einstein and Emanuel Lasker spent eight years discussing relativity in Bern, to part with opposite views, to join opposite powers, the USA and the USSR respectively. In the end Trinity validated E=mc^2, etc. Emanuel Lasker denied the existence of a vacuum to dodge the constancy of the speed of light (regardless of the relative velocity of the source as A.E. phrased it.)

How are the opinions of a chess player relevant?

[swansont]

4 hours ago, Poemander said:

I propose that Rutherfords hypothesis of neutrons in the nucleus is incorrect, and that this hypothesis stands in the way of an understanding of gravity akin to that of magnetism. Magnetism has been shown to be a Special Relativistic effect of opposite charges in different inertial frames. Gravity may be understood as a General Relativistic effect of opposite charges in different non-inertial frames in similar manner. If correct, we have a basis for an expanding universe due to a gravitational dipole resulting from the opposite charges on the antiparticles of the electron and the proton. Fred Hoyle's Steady State Universe would then be possibility.

Explain the three isotopes of hydrogen (all with different masses) with your conjecture. (or multiple isotopes of any element, and beta decay)

[studiot]

Here is my shortlist of experimental /observational comments on your claims.

 

3 hours ago, Poemander said:

If correct, we have a basis for an expanding universe due to a gravitational dipole resulting from the opposite charges on the antiparticles of the electron and the proton.

The gravity vector is observed to have the same sign for both particles and antiparticles.

3 hours ago, Poemander said:

Magnetism has been shown to be a Special Relativistic effect of opposite charges in different inertial frames

I think it is way more complicated than that. Charge is lorentz invariant. Charge density is not since it involves distance.

2 hours ago, Poemander said:

The conjecture is that protons and electrons alone exist in the nucleus

This would be contrary to  measurments in

1. Mass spectrometry.
2. Momentum observations (and calculations) on the dynamics of sub atomic particles.
3. The formation of molecules. You seem to have focused exclusively on atomic physics. The electrons residing outside the nucleus is consistent with our understanding of chemical bonding.

2 hours ago, Poemander said:

It is clear that AC current, not DC current, emits EM

DC spark generators emit broad spectrum electromagnetics and were the basis of the original radio comms devices.
Electroluminescence is a DC phenomenon.

2 hours ago, Poemander said:

It is not preposterous to imaging that photons and neutrinos are antiparticles capable of materialising in intergalactic space to replenish the universe. Of course I must sweep away many less plausible conjectures to propose such a situation, but which conjectures are more plausible, and how else does science stall or advance.

Now you are moving from the straighforward concrete (if wrong) proposition to the fanciful, and sorry but yes preposterous.

[swansont]

3 hours ago, Poemander said:

 The neutron has half-life 10.3 minutes. All other ejected or created particles last shorter times, and ultimately disintegrate into the same stable particles already mentioned.

Reconcile this with your assertion that neutrons don't exist. 

[taeto]

3 hours ago, Strange said:

How are the opinions of a chess player relevant?

"Emanuel Lasker was undoubtedly one of the most interesting people I came to know in my later years. We must be thankful to those who have penned the story of his life for this and succeeding generations. For there are few men who have had a warm interest in all the great human problems and at the same time kept their personality so uniquely independent." (Albert Einstein, 1952, in a foreword to a biography of Lasker)

Suspecting the OP is not referring to Lasker solely in his capacity as a chess player, rather as friend of Einstein and an excellent mathematician with an interest in physics. 

Also: Argumentum ad hominem.

2 hours ago, swansont said:

Explain the three isotopes of hydrogen (all with different masses) with your conjecture. (or multiple isotopes of any element, and beta decay)

Would he not simply think, well, there could be \(n+1\) protons and \(n\) electrons in the nucleus, and a single electron in orbit? Do you not have to know about nuclear spin to reject this suggestion?

Or is the point to explain why higher isotopes than tritium are highly unstable? 

Edited March 11, 2019 by taeto

[Sensei]

If you're rejecting existence of neutrons, then you are rejecting nuclear bombs and nuclear powerplants all together, as hoaxes, misinformation and world conspiracy?

Neutrons are essential for fission to work in nuclear powerplants..

If you bombard otherwise stable isotope by free neutrons, nucleii can capture free neutrons and change to other stable isotope or to unstable isotope which will decay after a while, or it can cause fission like in reaction of Uranium 235.

 

[Strange]

2 hours ago, taeto said:

Also: Argumentum ad hominem.

Guilty as charged!

But I still don't see how Lasker is relevant. 

[taeto]

1 hour ago, Sensei said:

If you're rejecting existence of neutrons, then you are rejecting nuclear bombs and nuclear powerplants all together, as hoaxes, misinformation and world conspiracy?

Neutrons are essential for fission to work in nuclear powerplants..

If you bombard otherwise stable isotope by free neutrons, nucleii can capture free neutrons and change to other stable isotope or to unstable isotope which will decay after a while, or it can cause fission like in reaction of Uranium 235.

I understand the OP as saying that free neutrons are okay. But somehow in the nucleus you do not have any neutrons, only some amount of electrons and a larger amount of protons.

And if an electron and a proton escape together from the nucleus, a free neutron is formed. Conversely, if a nucleus captures a free neutron, it somehow gets converted into an electron and a proton. 

What you are saying does not immediately contradict this possibility. I guess that preservation of spin might.

[Strange]

Just now, taeto said:

I understand the OP as saying that free neutrons are okay. But somehow in the nucleus you do not have any neutrons, only some amount of electrons and a larger amount of protons.

And if an electron and a proton escape together from the nucleus, a free neutron is formed. Conversely, if a nucleus captures a free neutron, it somehow gets converted into an electron and a proton. 

What you are saying does not immediately contradict this possibility. I guess that preservation of spin might.

We have models and data for fusion and beta decay (and nuclear structure and stability, and many other things - including spin) which are based on the presence of neutrons in the atom.

The OP would need to show, in mathematical detail, that their supposition can replicate all of that.

Apart from which, gravity cannot be electromagnetic. It is a silly idea with no possible basis in reality. As has been shown every time it comes up.

[Sensei]

2 hours ago, taeto said:

I understand the OP as saying that free neutrons are okay. But somehow in the nucleus you do not have any neutrons, only some amount of electrons and a larger amount of protons. 

And if an electron and a proton escape together from the nucleus, a free neutron is formed. Conversely, if a nucleus captures a free neutron, it somehow gets converted into an electron and a proton.  

What you are saying does not immediately contradict this possibility. I guess that preservation of spin might.

1) free neutron has larger mass-energy than free proton and free electron together. 782 keV larger mass-energy.

2) bound neutron in isotope changes rest-mass of nucleus quite significantly (unlike electrons which are ~1836.15 times lighter than proton)

3) bound neutron in isotope changes nuclear spin of nucleus. e.g. Helium-4 has nuclear spin 0 (even number of protons and neutrons give always spin 0), but Helium-5 has nuclear spin 3/2−. It's also unstable isotope that has unique decay mode via neutron emission.

[taeto]

2 hours ago, Strange said:

We have models and data for fusion and beta decay (and nuclear structure and stability, and many other things - including spin) which are based on the presence of neutrons in the atom.

The OP would need to show, in mathematical detail, that their supposition can replicate all of that.

I imagine to have to answer a high school student who asks "why neutrons in the nucleus, and not just protons and electrons?"

Do you have evidence to say that the OP has an understanding of physics which substantially exceeds that of said high school student?

If not, can you present any evidence to suggest that "We have models and data for fusion and beta decay (and nuclear structure and stability, and many other things - including spin) which are based on the presence of neutrons in the atom" would be a nearly optimal answer to the question? By forum rules you have to answer this question 

 

[Sensei]

Just now, taeto said:

I imagine to have to answer a high school student who asks "why neutrons in the nucleus, and not just protons and electrons?" 

Do you have evidence to say that the OP has an understanding of physics which substantially exceeds that of said high school student?

If not, can you present any evidence to suggest that "We have models and data for fusion and beta decay (and nuclear structure and stability, and many other things - including spin) which are based on the presence of neutrons in the atom" would be a nearly optimal answer to the question? By forum rules you have to answer this question 

Deuterium (Hydrogen-2) has nearly double mass-energy of Hydrogen-1 (single proton + electron)..

 

[taeto]

3 minutes ago, Sensei said:

1) free neutron has larger mass-energy than free proton and free electron together. 782 keV larger mass-energy.

Presumably the binding of an electron to a proton increases the energy to an amount larger than their sums.

[Sensei]

Just now, taeto said:

Presumably the binding of an electron to a proton increases the energy to an amount larger than their sums. 

No. That's exactly reverse.

Free proton has mass-energy 938.272 MeV.

Free electron has mass-energy 0.511 MeV.

Hydrogen-1 has 938.272 + 0.511 MeV - 13.6 eV.

Free neutron has mass-energy 939.565 MeV.

and decays via n0 -> p+ + e- + Ve + 0.782 MeV

(939.565 MeV - ( 938.272 MeV + 0.511 MeV) ) = 0.782 MeV

Edited March 11, 2019 by Sensei

[taeto]

5 minutes ago, Sensei said:

2) bound neutron in isotope changes rest-mass of nucleus quite significantly (unlike electrons which are ~1836.15 times lighter than proton)

Yes, they do not add, because the potential energy involved in their electromagnetic bonds.

4 minutes ago, Sensei said:

No. That's exactly reverse.

Free proton has mass-energy 938.272 MeV.

Free electron has mass-energy 0.511 MeV.

Hydrogen-1 has 938.272 + 0.511 MeV - 13.6 eV.

Free neutron has mass-energy 939.565 MeV.

and decays via n0 -> p+ + e- + Ve + 0.782 MeV

 

Brilliant!

But is it also the best way to explain it to a high school student? ( I keep imagining that an explanation on such a level would be best suited for our OP. )

Could the OP not say, well, to pull the neutron apart and make a free electron and a free proton, naturally you have to do some work, since they are bound by electromagnetic forces. And therefore you expect the neutron to have a larger mass-energy than the sum of the masses of the electron and proton? After doing the work, you will have less energy left to distribute between the two.

[uncool]

2 hours ago, taeto said:

Yes, they do not add, because the potential energy involved in their electromagnetic bonds.

Brilliant!

But is it also the best way to explain it to a high school student? ( I keep imagining that an explanation on such a level would be best suited for our OP. )

Could the OP not say, well, to pull the neutron apart and make a free electron and a free proton, naturally you have to do some work, since they are bound by electromagnetic forces. And therefore you expect the neutron to have a larger mass-energy than the sum of the masses of the electron and proton? After doing the work, you will have less energy left to distribute between the two.

That is exactly the opposite of correct reasoning; it reminds me of the "25 dollars" riddle.

Edited March 11, 2019 by uncool

[Strange]

2 hours ago, taeto said:

By forum rules you have to answer this question

I am not the one proposing a new theory.

2 hours ago, taeto said:

But is it also the best way to explain it to a high school student?

Is that relevant? The OP claims to have a new theory that replaces over 100 years of physics. So I assume he is some sort of super genius who has already studied this subject in great detail. 

2 hours ago, taeto said:

Could the OP not say ...

It is the OP's theory. It is up to them to defend it. 

If you want to start your own thread, then feel free ...

[Poemander]

Q. Why do so many newbies with obvious hypotheticals, as opposed  to tried and tested mainstream models, have so much trouble discerning the difference?

A. This is the difference. All of science is based on irreducible hypotheticals, the original inductive beginning of a theory or model by which we attempt to derive deductions. If these latter remain consistent the theory gains support, else we need to revise or abandon hypotheses. Mainstream hypotheses are like fashion or worse until science becomes technology. How much of Mainstream qualifies. What happened to phlogiston, or absolute time and space? Where was Hubble's evidence for Bigbangium, and why didn't Einstein propose the same when it was he who informed Hubble that the universe was expanding? The hypothesis was contrary to both theories of relativity, and still is, besides spitting out anomalies that caused CHANGES IN MAINSTREAM for decades! How much of science is actually applied in known technology across all fields? So why laud Mainstream when wisdom is justified by her children, and the folly is in your faces. Yet we worship a God that uses the credence of a small fraction to claim universal infallibility while lemmings march on.

Q. Proposals without evidence are a dime a dozen. What evidence, observational or experimental, do you have to support your hypothetical claim against the tried and tested mainstream theory/model?

A. As detailed, the pot calls the kettle black, with three fingers pointing back at itself! A spring cleaning of the entire hypothetical basis of all branches of science is required, where technology has yet to verify political/economic influence. This general swipe of snow and mist is by its nature unanswerable. I must restrict myself to specific questions with apologies.

Q. Then you need an alternative explanation for all the evidence that the nucleus also contains neutrons.

A. Why not propose that the nucleus consists of protons and mu mesons? Insufficient mass for electrons in the nucleus was contradicted by the Mainstream adoption of the evidence from Enola Gay to the world - a little too loud to (continue to) ignore. Relativistic electrons have the mass, and therefore carry the mass-energy.

Q. 1.       Electric charge has positive and negative charges (and equivalently for magnetic fields). Gravity doesn't.

A. 1.       I claim (with the same evidence used for Hubble’s famous hypothesis that Mainstream implicitly accepts) that an expanding universe says otherwise – that matter and antimatter repel. This voids the need for Dark Matter to supply the missing force. We might use the name for antimatter.

Q. 2.       Electromagnetic forces both attract and repel. Gravity doesn't.

A. 2,       See A. 1

Q. 3.       Electromagnetism can be easily screened. Gravity can't.

A. 4.       For those who haven't heard the bomb (1945) yet - all force is one force - electric fields. Disturbances in the force are a result of the acceleration of charged particles. Magnetic force is a result of space contraction creating an imbalance in the fluxes from moving charges relative to the (observer protons) stationary charges. The mathematics reveals that (as suspected by Maxwell) the permeability constant (u) equals the reciprocal of the product of the permittivity constant (e) with the speed of light (c) squared. Electromagnetism is a very loose term and incorrect if I am right. We may need to rename light (in any inertial frame) as electro-magnetic-gravitational energy.

Q. 4.       Electromagnetism can be explained by a simple force with an inverse square law. Gravity can't.

A. 4. This is incorrect: F = G.m1.m2/r^2 looks much like F = 4.Pi.e.q1.q2/r^2. The difference is (present Mainstream) that m, unlike q, is only positive. I CONTEST THIS HYPOTHESIS, and have done so since I learned about antimatter in 1969. Einstein died in 1955. Antimatter (beyond positrons) was discovered in 1956, when the existence of the second material particle - the antiproton - became manifest to the scientific community. Without this Einstein was unaware that the universe consisted of both types of matter. Mainstream has voided this with 'evidence' of asymmetric matter-antimatter reactions to prop up Big Bang once again. The evidence seems very flimsy to me, considering the evidence of the exact opposite in so many ways. But antimatter balancing matter universally (materialisation from gamma rays indicates conservation of charge and mass by zero sum) was necessary to complete his Unified Field Theory. My proposal actually explains Einstein’s hypothesised gravitational and inertial mass equivalence principle, as well as the implied rest mass-energy equivalence as absolute potential energy in the gravitational fields of the universe.

Q. 5.       Etc.

(This idiotic idea comes up with such tedious frequency, that I should really keep a list of these somewhere instead of typing it out every time...)

A. 5.       This is not Platonic dialogue. Must be Aristotelian. I have no doubt that you have and cherish pat rhetoric for argument without reason. There is no umpire in a chess game, if you wish to test your logic objectively.

Q. "The importance of contesting this conjecture is that General  Relativity deals with the effects of relative acceleration in the production of imbalanced fluxes due to relative space contraction."

What!?

A. Clearly the replies from Nelson's schoolyard bullies are "biff, biff, biff". Politicians in the making? Relying on rhetoric, not well verse in topics, any idea what you're talking about? (plagiarising Cyndi Lauper's "You Don't Know". She probably understands Magnetism better than some.) Let's keep it logical and scientific, and a little less hypocritical, political and emotional, and keep the board level so the pieces don’t disappear. Science seeks Truth, necessary for Justice, if you cherish your Freedom and trust in your God by whatever definition. In the wrong hands it is our mutual extinction.

[Strange]

No evidence, then?

[studiot]

 

36 minutes ago, Poemander said:

Q. Why do so many newbies with obvious hypotheticals, as opposed  to tried and tested mainstream models, have so much trouble discerning the difference? ..............

...........................................................................................................................

.....................Science seeks Truth, necessary for Justice, if you cherish your Freedom and trust in your God by whatever definition. In the wrong hands it is our mutual extinction. 

I asked you three questions and made two further comments where centuries of evidence with the behaviour of bulk materials directly contradicts specific postulates you have made.

None of your smart ass presentation (perhaps aping that of Eddington's prologue in his famous book "Space, Time and Gravitation" ?) answer any of these.

 

Please respond properly as required by the rules here.

[Strange]

1 hour ago, Poemander said:

A. 4. This is incorrect: F = G.m1.m2/r^2 looks much like F = 4.Pi.e.q1.q2/r^2.

But Newton's equation for gravity is only approximate. It fails in a number of cases (which was one of the motivations for the development of GR).

2 hours ago, Poemander said:

m, unlike q, is only positive. I CONTEST THIS HYPOTHESIS, and have done so since I learned about antimatter in 1969.

So you are suggesting that antimatter has negative mass?

There is no evidence for that. But also no strong evidence against it either. Yet. The CERN ALPHA project should soon provide a measure of the mass of anti-hydrogen.